1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 692 of 2025 Decided on : 25.8.2025 Krishan Kumar & anr. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P.& anr. …Respondents ______________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ______________________________________________ For the Petitioners : Mr. Hitender Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. Rohit Sharma, Dy. A.G., for respondent No. 1. Mr. Vishal Verma and Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocates, for respondent No. 2. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred 2 to as ‘the BNSS’) seeking quashing of FIR No. No. 205 of 2023, dated 22.10.2023, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, with Police Station, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in view of the compromise, having been effected, between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2. 2. Brief facts, as borne out from the record are that on 22.10.2023, a telephonic information had been received in the Police Station, through Women Helpline that respondent No. 2 Tanvi has informed that her husband is beating her and appropriate action may kindly be taken. Upon the said information, 3 H.C.Deepak No. 98, alongwith other police official, reached at village Tharu, Paprola, where respondent No. 2 produced a complaint before the Police, disclosing therein, that respondent No. 2 got married to petitioner No. 1, in the month of December, 2020. Due to rift between respondent No. 2 and her mother-in-law (petitioner No. 2), petitioner No. 2 told respondent No. 2 to get out of the house, upon which, respondent No. 2 left her matrimonial house. When, respondent No. 2, alongwith her sister, returned back to her matrimonial house after three months, her husband (petitioner No. 1) and her mother-in-law (petitioner No. 2) started beating her and her sister. Upon this, respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR in question. 3. According to the petitioners, after registration of the FIR, the criminal machinery swung into motion. After completion of the 4 investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. was submitted in the trial Court. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that now, with the intervention of the respectables of the society, the matter has been compromised between the petitioners and respondent No. 2, as all the misunderstandings between the parties have now been cleared. In pursuance of the compromise, respondent No. 2 is now residing with petitioner No. 1, in her matrimonial home. 5. On the basis of said positive development, a prayer has been made to allow the present petition, as prayed for. 6. When put to notice, respondent-State has filed the status report, disclosing therein the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and the Police has investigated the matter and submitted report under Section 173(2) Cr. P.C., before the learned trial Court. 5 7. Today, the person, who, at one point of time, had levelled the allegations, against the petitioners, i.e. respondent No. 2, appeared and stated, on oath, that the FIR was lodged by her due to mis-understanding. But, now the matter has been compromised between her and the petitioners, as all the misunderstandings have now been cleared between them, and in pursuance of the said compromise, she has started residing with petitioner No. 1, in her matrimonial home. 8. On the basis of above, she has stated that she does not want to proceed further and prayed that she has no objection, in case the petition is allowed. 9. Similar type of statements have been made by the petitioners, in which, they have asserted about the compromise, as well as, the fact that respondent No. 2 is now residing with 6 her husband (petitioner No. 1), in the matrimonial home. 10. Heard. 11. Considering the fact that respondent No. 2, who, at one point of time, had lodged the FIR in question, against the petitioners, has now settled the matter with the petitioners and has started residing with her husband, in the matrimonial home. The efforts, which have been made by the petitioners, as well as, respondent No. 2, to compromise the matter, vide compromise deed Annexure P-2, must get recognition from the Court, as primary purpose of the law is to maintain peace and harmony, in the society. 12. Acceptance of the compromise would encourage the parties to live peacefully in the society and the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of the FIR in question, 7 lodged by respondent No. 2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law. 13. Acceptance of the compromise will also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote such time, for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it. 14. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. No. 205 of 2023, dated 22.10.2023, registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 34 IPC with Police Station, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., and the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 15. The statements, so recorded, before this Court, as well as, compromise Annexure P-2, shall form part of the judgment. 8 16. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge August 25, 2025 Kalpana